Nos. 59586-5-I; 58734-0-I.The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One.
July 30, 2007.
Appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 06-8-01539-0, Carol A. Schapira, J., entered January 26, 2007.
Reversed
and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
PER CURIAM.
Dennis Teets appeals the restitution order entered following his conviction in juvenile court of attempted residential burglary. We reverse and remand.
Teets was charged with residential burglary along with a co-defendant.
The trial court concluded that the State had not proved the offense beyond a reasonable doubt because it did not establish whether it was Teets, his co-defendant, a third identified person, or some other person who entered the victim’s house. The court found Teets guilty of attempted residential burglary. Over defense counsel’s objection, the court imposed restitution of $120, the amount of cash missing from the victim’s home.
Teets appeals, challenging only the restitution order. The State concedes that the trial court was without authority to order Teets to pay restitution because there was an insufficient causal connection between Teets’ offense of attempted residential burglary and the missing cash. The concession is well taken. See State v. Woods, 90 Wn. App. 904, 906, 953 P.2d 834 (1998) (restitution is limited to losses causally related to offense charged and proven); State v. Mizsak, 69 Wn. App. 426, 428, 848 P.2d 1329 (1993) (restitution cannot be imposed based on defendant’s “general scheme” or acts “connected with” the crime charged, when those acts are not part of the charge); State v. Blair, 56 Wn. App. 209, 214-15, 783 P.2d 102 (1989) (restitution order must be based on existence of causal relationship between offense charged and proven and victim’s damages).
The order of restitution is reversed and remanded. For the court: